No Plans To Discipline Pelosi, Says Washington Archbishop

[Ecce_homo_1]

While I am very hesitant in supporting the denial of the Eucharist due to personal issues which may involve two/sides or he said/she said kind of disagreements, the public record on this issue seems clear. We have a politician who is, at the very least, working to enable those who support and desire abortion. Abortion not only represents a grave moral danger to our nation, but a demographic one, as well. In a certain literal sense, abortion doctors are flushing our future down the drains.

Bishop Sheen said some wonderful things about the Eucharist in a message I listened to on tape. In his homily (to priests, I believe), he emphasized the abosoulte necessity to avoid receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. He said it posed a PHYSICAL danger as well as spiritual. I’d suggest that the bishop who is allowing Pelosi to receive the Eucharist is on very shaky ground indeed. I think the action (or inaction, in this case) places both of them in spiritual danger.

If there is evil, we need to confront it–not appease it. I know it is not easy to do, but we all should do what is within our own power to ensure that there is an outcry over this sad state of affairs. It’s simple… If Pelosi supports abortion, it is beyond hypocritical for her to be receiving the body, soul, and divinity of our Lord in the Eucharist.

You’re a gentelman and a scholar, you said what I said just in a much clearer and more charitable way.

I’m a hothead and I shoot from the hip, but essentially I agree with what you’re saying that it is the Bishop’s duty to ensure Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t receive the Eucharist while she is outside the sacraments for her own good.

Pope John Paul II talked about the New Springtime, there’s no mystery as to why he focused so much energy back to the Eucharist to try and bring the new springtime forth.

 

[PaulN420]

I have a cartoon relating to this, but I don’t know if it will post. Here goes nothing:

 

[Lance]

Good points, but is there any expectation that those who are angry (or worse) with the Archbishop are going to go to the Chancellery Offices in a group and confront him and demand action? How about an ad in the secular papers to present their viewpoint? (You know, "An Open Letter to…) What letters have been sent to the diocesan paper?

Has Rome been petitioned? Has Benedict been informed?

You point out some of my personal failings which I intend to rectify. I am going to write my bishop and even though I am outside the archdiocese of Chicago I will write Cardinal George. You are correct that our energies would probably be better spent writing a letter to the bishop than posting here.

 

[Richardols]

You point out some of my personal failings which I intend to rectify. I am going to write my bishop and even though I am outside the archdiocese of Chicago I will write Cardinal George. You are correct that our energies would probably be better spent writing a letter to the bishop than posting here.

It’s that last that I think will help. Grousing, being uncharitable to the Archbishop (not you to be sure!), calling him names on this Forum won’t count for spit. If some feel that he ought to be confronted either in person or by mail (forget e-mails, no one pays attention to them) then that’s what ought to be done.

 

[system]

The more I read on this forum the more I question where I rest my hat every Sunday.

Me too

 

[Lance]

The more I read on this forum the more I question where I rest my hat every Sunday.

I pray that you are not seriously considering leaving the church. You too Max.

 

[Jerome42]

I pray that you are not seriously considering leaving the church. You too Max.

Leaving the Church, questioning one’s Faith is playing right into the devil’s hands.

 

[Thekla]

And that’s the problem. The bad name that these politicians give to the Church cannot be measured. Our pastor said that Jackie Kennedy, for example, was ex-communicated because of the effect on the Church when she married Ari. Perhaps he is wrong?

I don’t think that the Church has a bad name.

I looked this up and could find nothing about Jackie Kennedy being excommunicated. Upon her marriage to Onassis, the Vatican did put out a press release saying that because of her marriage to a divorced man, she wasn’t supposed to receive the sacraments. But I thought she received a Catholic funeral…

 

[pnewton]

Just love your charitable attitude towards the bishop.

The real lack of charity is for the one who is supposed to be a sheppherd confirming a member of his flock in her mortal sin. Part of the “pastoral” job of a priest is to admonish the sinner. Hurt feelings will pass but hell is forever.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t think that the Church has a bad name.

I looked this up and could find nothing about Jackie Kennedy being excommunicated. Upon her marriage to Onassis, the Vatican did put out a press release saying that because of her marriage to a divorced man, she wasn’t supposed to receive the sacraments. But I thought she received a Catholic funeral…

She did have a Catholic funeral and I bet Teddy does too when he passes. There seems to be a wink and a nod for the “better” people.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

It’s that last that I think will help. Grousing, being uncharitable to the Archbishop (not you to be sure!), calling him names on this Forum won’t count for spit. If some feel that he ought to be confronted either in person or by mail (forget e-mails, no one pays attention to them) then that’s what ought to be done.

Richard I do wonder if once or twice in your 4,100 posts if you’ve ever been guilty of what you so readily accuse people in this thread of doing? Perhaps by noting this error on a message board we’re creating awareness among Catholics to the problem. Not every action has to be trying to meet with the Bishop, I don’t think it’s up to you to decide if peoples posts are serving any good or not, unless you’re ready to be as scrupulous with yourself and your own posts.

Essentially lighten up a little bit and stop coming down so hard on folks who obviously upset and sick of waiting for our Bishops to stand up and speak with one voice and condemn such a glaring sin.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

The real lack of charity is for the one who is supposed to be a sheppherd confirming a member of his flock in her mortal sin. Part of the “pastoral” job of a priest is to admonish the sinner. Hurt feelings will pass but hell is forever.

 

[Harp]

Withholding Holy Communion is actually an act of Charity, and is intended to bring the individual back to his or hers Catholic beliefs. If obstinate persistence continues, then excommunication can be a next step. Please consider that Ms. Pelosi, as a government official, has a public record on supporting abortion. Therfore, as a Catholic, she is giving scandal to both herself, and the Catholic Body of Christ. If we truly believe that the Eucharist is is the Real Presence of Christ, Himself, then we are directly offending Christ by diminishing the importance of our Catholic beliefs, and allowing a persistant and grave offense to continue.

 

[urban-hermit]

It’s enough that she has excommunicated herself - that’s a fact

Is that true? Neither the archbishop nor Mrs. Pelosi is acting as if it is. Maybe they aren’t aware … ???

 

[Writer]

You’re a gentelman and a scholar, you said what I said just in a much clearer and more charitable way.

I’m a hothead and I shoot from the hip, but essentially I agree with what you’re saying that it is the Bishop’s duty to ensure Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t receive the Eucharist while she is outside the sacraments for her own good.

Pope John Paul II talked about the New Springtime, there’s no mystery as to why he focused so much energy back to the Eucharist to try and bring the new springtime forth.

Thank you very much for your kind words, Ecce_homo. They’re appreciated! This is a great thread…

 

[Holly3278]

I think that Pelosi needs to be disciplined for the sake of her soul. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[b_justb]

b_justb and Richard,

It sounds as if you two are saying that we who think the bishops allowing pro abortion politicians to receive the Euchrist and call themselves Catholic is not a scandal and we should just close our mouths and let the bishops be. I hope I am reading you wrong because if I am not then what right do we have to be upset at Cardinal Law and others who covered up the child abuse scandals? I believe it is our duty to point out when we believe the bishops to be in error and if they disagree they should give a reason for their decision.

Not at all. Just to be clear, I do think it is scandalous, very scandalous. I said in an earlier post that, “Just because one doesn’t feel the scandal another feels does not mean that the scandal is any less prevalent.” That was in direct response to another that posted that said she didn’t see this as scandalous.

I also do not think any bishop, even our beloved pope, should go forth without question from the flock. The manner in which that is done should be highly respectful and if one thinks that the issue is unresolved, then take the appropriate steps to speak to his superior, right to the top if need be.

With all that being said, my questions are generally to both sides of this thread. One side (generally) is speaking out in direct opposition to the bishop on this forum. Is that the correct way to go about it? I don’t think it is. One side (generally) is saying this is no biggie, God will meet out what He will and it’s not our business for: are not we too egregious sinners. Is that the stance to take? I don’t think it is. I think there is an action in the middle of these two that might be a better way of handling it.

I also think, but perhaps didn’t convey very well, that where one stands on this particular issue has more to do with ones political views rather than ones Catholicity, which I find sad.

 

[Lance]

Not at all. Just to be clear, I do think it is scandalous, very scandalous. I said in an earlier post that, “Just because one doesn’t feel the scandal another feels does not mean that the scandal is any less prevalent.” That was in direct response to another that posted that said she didn’t see this as scandalous.

I also do not think any bishop, even our beloved pope, should go forth without question from the flock. The manner in which that is done should be highly respectful and if one thinks that the issue is unresolved, then take the appropriate steps to speak to his superior, right to the top if need be.

With all that being said, my questions are generally to both sides of this thread. One side (generally) is speaking out in direct opposition to the bishop on this forum. Is that the correct way to go about it? I don’t think it is. One side (generally) is saying this is no biggie, God will meet out what He will and it’s not our business for: are not we too egregious sinners. Is that the stance to take? I don’t think it is. I think there is an action in the middle of these two that might be a better way of handling it.

I also think, but perhaps didn’t convey very well, that where one stands on this particular issue has more to do with ones political views rather than ones Catholicity, which I find sad.

We are closer than I first thought about how to handle this. As Rich suggested I am writting a letter to my bishop and to Cardinal George stating my position and what I would like to see them do.

 

[Richardols]

She did have a Catholic funeral and I bet Teddy does too when he passes. There seems to be a wink and a nod for the “better” people.

The Church almost always allows a Catholic funeral for all except the most notorious. Even Mafiosi get buried from church. It’s an example of charity on the part of the Church to do so, I think.

 

[Richardols]

Richard I do wonder if once or twice in your 4,100 posts if you’ve ever been guilty of what you so readily accuse people in this thread of doing?

Sure, I have and have even suffered some suspension for it.

Perhaps by noting this error on a message board we’re creating awareness among Catholics to the problem. Not every action has to be trying to meet with the Bishop,

Why not? Meeting with the bishop is precisely an action that those who are bothered by his “inaction” should do to let the bishop know what they expect of their shepherd, rather than just grouse about what a miscreant he supposedly is.

unless you’re ready to be as scrupulous with yourself and your own posts.

Oh, I am. I don’t relish getting suspended again. I am careful not to call anyone any names or attribute satanic motivation to the things politicians or the clergy do.

Essentially lighten up a little bit and stop coming down so hard on folks who obviously upset and sick of waiting for our Bishops to stand up and speak with one voice and condemn such a glaring sin.

I see no reason to lighten up on a lack of charity to our hierarchy. The bishop can be criticized without calling him names and throwing ad hominems his way.